According to the State Department's annual drug-trafficking report, a federal law took effect in 1985 authorizing the United States to penalize countries that do not control illicit narcotics production. Today, these same countries are now producing larger quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other drugs, Furthermore, three years after installing a pro-U.S. government, Afghanistan has been unable to contain opium poppy production and is on the verge of becoming a narcotics state. Opium poppy is the raw material for heroin. Colombia is the source of more than 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering the United States. The report also listed Mexico as a major producer of heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana destined for U.S. markets. Source: New York Times and Associated Press.

Some would argue that the only solution would be the legalization of drugs. By removing the criminality of drug sales, possession and usage, the United States government could devote more of its law enforcement resources on other crimes such as murder, rape, assault etc. Furthermore, they argue that regulation of such drugs could create a revenue enhancement for federal, state and local governments. The counter argument suggests that by legalizing drugs, the government grants an implicit consent that drug consumption is morally acceptable. Others argue that the U.S. should focus more on the demand side of the problem by increasing funds for psychiatric and psychological counseling. Their argument is based on the idea that if the individual is properly counseled and medicated, the demand for illegal narcotics would drop significantly. The counter argument is that this solution is cost prohibitive and will only result in replacing one problem with another. Still others offer a more hard-line approach when it comes to dealing with foreign countries such as setting a deadline for the removal of narcotics production. If the deadline passes, the U.S. should utilize various crop-field-burning methods so as to totally obliterate any type of crop production. This would effectively eliminate the central piece of drug production across the planet. The counter argument, however, is that this policy would prevent farmers from switching to other crops in order to earn a legitimate living. I believe that the problem of illegal narcotics in the United States poses a greater threat to the average citizen than any terrorist and/or nuclear threat in existence today. Perhaps a balanced integration of all three of these solutions is our only answer.

How exactly are you threatened? If you don't take drugs, what does it matter to you?

And since you are so anti-drug, your liklihood of becoming an illegal drug addict seems pretty much nil. You are probably more likely to become an alchololic or a gambling addict. But considering your hard line right wing approach, I guess you would want to ban them too, and that you don't drink or gamble.

What is your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? Why do you even bring the word terrorism into your argument? Wouldn't automobile wrecks, including drunk driving, be a greater risk than either drugs or terrorism to you?

do effect all of society, not just drug users. It effects the woman who has her purse snatched, the guy who has been robbed at the ATM, the prostitute looking for her next trick, the guy shot dead for his wallet, and all the victims families effected by these crimes. It effects every taxpayer for the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of users desperate enough to commit these criminal acts. I don't think that legalization of these hard drugs will solve the problem. It may lessen it somewhat. I do think we have to stop glorifying the high life with music and movies. That may help too. I still think the most powerful and most abused drug of all, alcohol, is often overlooked because it is legal. Thousands are killed each year on the roads and in our hospitals from alcohol related illnesses, and yet our society will defends its use, at any cost, and I don't think its the social drinkers that care. This is a tough one. Maybe, if we're still around the next hundred years, science will have invented the "magic pill" which will stop all addiction.

"Maybe, if we're still around the next hundred years, science will have invented the "magic pill" which will stop all addiction."

We already have. To my knowledge(slim at best) the drug turns off the pleasure centers in the brain for 6 weeks or so... you can snort coke all day and nothing.. smoke cigarettes? not with this... alcohol, nothing but nasty tasting liquid...

We have it.. nobody wants to take it.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

You're one of my favorites on this site and I trust you completely, but are you sure about the "magic pill"? I can see why the alcohol and tobacco
industries wouldn't be pushing it, because they could loose millions in sales, but why not for drug users? Wouldn't it cut street and domestic crime drastically? I would think it could be court ordered for illegal drug use. I'd
certainly buy this stock!

some interesting points and analysis...illegal narcotics are a symptom of this country imploding (addiction) as compared to exploding (terrorists)...